posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:39 AM
Originally posted by Griffo515
Originally posted by St Vaast
Is that true -- that a group (in this instance Scientology) can obtain a permit for a street closure, after which police paid by the taxpayer
can order the public from a public street which is owned by the public ?
That's hard to believe
You see it done for Christmas festivities all the time so i don't see why not?...there would be something in there, but if its on a public street
that makes it a public display right?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean so I'll jot down some points and you can tell me where I'm wrong, please
* public street . Is paid for by the public.
* State or whatever police. Paid for by the public
* group obtains permit to close the street for special event
* but it still remains a public street, just closed to vehicular traffic (is that right ? )
* security guards NOT paid by the public but by the organisers of the event
* member of the public is ordered OUT OF a public street by a private security guard AND a member of the police service
To me, it seems
* the security guard lacked any authority to order the cameraman out of that street
* the State/Federal police officer had NO authority to order the cameraman off the public street
* the State/Federal police officer does NOT work for the security guard, NOR does he work for the special-event organisers -- he works for the public
and ... if he wanted to get involved, it was his duty to uphold the right of the cameraman to remain on the street
What's your opinion ?